Again, those data from Webpagetest don't show a performance difference. But when I disable the CDN, I can see the images loading sequentially (using Chrome), and members start to complain about page speeds and images timing out.

I'd really like to drop the CDN so I can make full use of ngx_pagespeed image optimization. Somehow I feel like the CDN is serving as a workaround for some other issue I am missing at the moment.

I am on the east coast of the US, located not far from the server. Yet the pages are clearly faster when I serve the images via CDN even when every single image is a cache MISS with KeyCDN.

I know it doesn't show in the webpagetest results, but it is obvious in use. @Matt can attest to that as well. He was helping me try to get the images to show faster without the CDN, but the heaviest pages would time out no matter what we did.

Issue 1369 dedup_inline_images filter is broken for images that don't already have an id (c1827b)

Click to expand...

I can only see in Chrome your CDN version so not much I can see from here. Centmin Mod is provide as is, so short of scripted related bugs or issues, any further optimisation to the web stack components - nginx, php-fpm, mariadb mysql, csf firewall etc or web app specific configurations are left to the Centmin Mod user to deal with. So I do not provide any free support for such.

However, Centmin Mod users are free to help each other out and ask questions or give answers on this community forum. My hopes are that this community forum evolves so that more veteran long time Centmin Mod users help new Centmin Mod users out

Again, those data from Webpagetest don't show a performance difference. But when I disable the CDN, I can see the images loading sequentially (using Chrome), and members start to complain about page speeds and images timing out.

Click to expand...

also speed of your ISP net connection versus your members ? and your member's location ? where member locations get further from origin, the CDN will be always faster for those members.

If you want faster page loads reduce page size from 6-7MB to under 1MB per page.

Click to expand...

That is the reason I want to get ngx_pagespeed working on those images. On desktop, people on my sites like to view 1600px images at jpegoptim quality 90%. That means page sizes up to 20+ MB at times since it's a photography site and there can be 50 or more images on a page.

I can't find any way to do responsive images using srcset in XenForo like WordPress does now by default. I've looked into CDNs that resize images according to user agent, and those have so far been too expensive.

ngx_pagespeed as you know can resize images for mobile, but there is no way to do that with KeyCDN since the KeyCDN servers don't have pagespeed installed. I can rewrite assets from the CDN back to my origin server, but that defeats the purpose of the CDN.

That is the reason I want to get ngx_pagespeed working on those images. On desktop, people on my sites like to view 1600px images at jpegoptim quality 90%. That means page sizes up to 20+ MB at times since it's a photography site and there can be 50 or more images on a page.

Click to expand...

maybe change your posts per thread from 20 to 10 to halve number of posts shown per thread page ? and if you limit number of attachments per post, you can spread those many images over more pages ?

But ImageEngine worked out to more than 50X more expensive than KeyCDN. They charge a per image fee rather than a flat bandwidth fee, and that quickly mounts for my sites.

I'm currently in talks with Fastly, who offer similar services to ImageEngine but for lower cost. Maybe that will be the solution. But I'd sure like to get it all done with ngx_pagespeed and stop using a CDN altogether if possible.

@Matt The current method with KeyCDN is better than the old way I think. Page weight and performance are better now than they were with most images embedded from Flickr.

So I don't regret hosting all the images, just trying to get things even more optimized. The POTN rules are very strict. I wouldn't want to limit members that much. But I do sometimes wonder whether 1600px is too high.